for an unimaginable number of communities. so we might say that history is a set of facts but history is really an interpretation. and libraries are the places where people can come and emerge themselves in the. and i believe deeply in the importance of digital repositories as well. it allows greater access. it allows people to zoom into things that they would never be able to see so closely before. i think there is truly something amazing and magical about a personal communion with an artifact of books and in print from the past. as we hold in our hands the life's work, the photo album that was put together as he remembers the war. i think it transports us and it's the closest thing to a time machine that i've ever found. so i find it an absolutely delightful opportunity to be able to be immersed in the world of history, ma and that's what

you can do at a library like this. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to providence, rhode island, and the many of the cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/localcontent. >> over the last few weeks, the tv has aired several best of 2012 booklist which are all available at booktv.org. we also sat down with sarah weinman of publishers marketplace and bob mentioned shiner of "usa today" to discuss the past year and a little area -- literary world. to watch that conversation and more this at booktv.org and search 2012 year in books. >> amy greenberg recounts the mexican-american war in 1846. the author recounts president polk's decision to go to war and the roles that then congressman abraham lincoln and henry clay

played in the national debate. this is about an hour. >> thanks, denise. i want to thank everybody who's been so nice to be here at the abraham lincoln presidential center. i've seen the benito juárez exhibit which i encourage all of you to go see when there isn't some very big event going on over there, like there is right now. it's a fantastic show, and really the relationship between juárez and lincoln is so really intriguing. what i want to talk to you guys about today is my most recent book, "a wicked war: polk, clay, lincoln, and the 1846 invasion of mexico." the title of "a wicked war" is taken from a quote from ulysses s. grant, from late in his life, grant looked back sort of on everything you done in his career and in his memoirs he writes very frankly about the experiences that he is had, the good and bad, and it makes a really good reading.

at one thing that grant spent some time thinking and talking of late in his life was his role in the u.s.-mexico war of 1846. and grant said, you know, at the time i do not think there was ever a more wicked more than that waged by the united states on mexico. i thought so at the time when i was a youngster only i had not moral courage enough to resign. grant, of course, during the time of the u.s.-mexico war was a young lieutenant. and i just found this a really nothing quote and that's what i took it for my title. the fact of the matter is that grant was not alone in thinking that the u.s. invasion of mexico is somehow wicked. one thing that a toddler in this book and i will talk about tonight is the evolution of the american public during the course of u.s.-mexico war which was not about war by any means, from being really enthusiastic and in favor of invading mexico to largely turning against the war. and i see the u.s.-mexico war as the moment of america's first

antiwar movement actually coming into being. so there was antiwar sentiment during the revolution and certainly during the war of 1812, but that sentiment was limited. what you see happened in 1847 is a consensus really across the board, people from different regions of the country, soldiers in the field, officers, politicians, all this, that a war was being -- was wrong and actuallactually protesting the s i think this is an interesting moment in american history, and it takes place in whether people really don't know much about. the u.s.-mexico war, people don't write about it a lot but it doesn't have a big place in sort of the historical imagination of americans. there's a number of reasons for the. it's often confused with the texas revolution that happened eight years before, or ignored altogether. when historians to talk about

the u.s.-mexico war, they tend to think about the war in relationship to the civil war. and they narrate the u.s.-mexico war as sort of the first stop on the road to succession. arguing that the land again from mexico at the close of the war was what really caused sectionalism to heat up. in fact, all that is to say you can look at the war as sort of the moment that the civil war became inevitable if you want to look at it that way, or you can look at on its own terms which is what i tried to do in this book. what i was interested in doing when i wrote this book is to show the impact of the war on individuals and on families. the u.s.-mexico war had the highest mortality rate of any american war, 15% soldiers who served in mexico after the united states died. 78,000 troops served in mexico, and it was a war that had a big impact on people at home. so i really wanted to write a

narrative that explores how people in the united states and also mexico, how the war impacted them and their families, and some of the people i talk about in this war are abraham lincoln, who makes his first major political speech, his speech that i've been actually was quite widely documented and discussed in newspapers. his first major speech in congress is about the u.s.-mexico war, condemning the war. so lincoln's first political stance on the national stage is actually against the u.s.-mexico war. that's one person i talk about. another person i talk about is john j. hardin, who some of you may be familiar with. he was part of a very, very important family in jacksonville, and for a period of time he was the leading way politician in the state of illinois. not abraham lincoln. and it's only harden who gets in the u.s.-mexico war that some people have argued makes lincoln's path forward and is wrote to the presidency possible because he is really under the shadow of john hardin before that happen.

hardens them is fascinating and they are deeply, deeply affected by the u.s.-mexico war. let me tell you about the war, i'm assuming like most people you probably don't know a whole lot about it. the north american invasion as it's known in mexico begin with president james k. polk sent troops into disputed area between the rio grande rivers, with the intention of starting a war. poker wanted war. he was set on declaring war if the mexican army didn't want a debate. the day he found out that mexicans had crossed the rio grande and killed 14 soldiers in the disputed area, polk went to the cabinet and he said, you know, i think we should declare war against mexico. and his cabinet said, well, we really can't declare war because the mexicans haven't done anything. we sent 4000 american troops down into land that mexico

thinks is theirs and we're waiting for something happens we can't declare war on mexico to. but then polk finds out the next day an incident had happened to me before. of course, news travels very slowly them. when polk got this incident that he needed, he went to congress on may 11, 1846, and he stated mexico has passed the boundaries of the united states, has invaded our territory and shed american blood on american soil. not to put too fine a point on it, this was a lie and everybody knew it was a lie. the wig party which was the opposition party, abraham lincoln sparta, everybody in the wake party in congress knew about the land where the soldiers have been sent, when the army was currently occupying had always been considered mexican rather than texan lance. a lot of congressmen, both weeks and democrats, right privately to each other after polk makes the statement, the idea that this is american so that blood was shed on is pretty dubious, but the fact of the matter is

everybody lines up and they vote in favor of polk's separation back nash declaration of war. he is saying the war is already going on, let's send support to the troops. so the whig's are afraid of looking unpatriotic, suffering under the label of not being patriotic. so all the 14 members of congress vote in favor of declaring war against mexico and that's how the war started. as you're going here today, the war was not short enough for the american people. it was met by a number of military successes such as the battle of point battle of boing of vista were 5000 u.s. soldiers defeated an army under general antonio the sand and at between 15 and 20,000 soldiers. the numbers, the ratio in the battle of buena vista is obvious the quite astounded with the fact of the matter is that in

almost every battle of the u.s.-mexico war, the mexican troops greatly outnumbered u.s. troops, and yet the u.s. one everything a military engagemenengagemen t in this war with the exception of the battle of -- in california which american troops prefer to serve think of as a skirmish rather than about. so so that doesn't really count other than that americans win a battle. there were three theaters of the war. the first stage of the war, general zachary taylor secured northern mexico with key victories including this one at buena vista in 1846 and the first months of 1847. the second theater of war, general carney traveled west from fort leavenworth in kansas through new mexico. that happens about the same time. unfortunately, neither of these tremendous victories bring what polk once, which is peace and the securing of california and texas into the american union. mexico refuses to surrender

despite the victories of both taylor and kerning, so polk decides to send general winfield to invade mexico. you bombard their accused and traveled through centra you bombard their accused and traveled through central mexico securing the capital in the fall of 1847. in the eyes of americans it was sort of a foregone conclusion that their side would win. and went easily because most citizens harbored a race against mexican men, being that mexican men were too lazy and cowardly. now, in point of fact, mexican troops fought very hard as you can see in this really rare print mexican pashtun mexico produce very few images of the war. it's great when you can find one so you can get a sense out they aren't fishing what's happening. mexico lost all of these battles and ultimately lost the military side of the war because they had vastly inferior weapons. their leadership was terrible.

mexico's government was in turmoil. they were broke. there were various battles with there was, no money was even making it to the army to support itself. and because hostile native american tribes in the north of mexico has a ravaged northern mexico that there's very little will to resist among a lot of mexican residents in the northern part of mexico. now, on the mexican side most of the army was made up of conscripts who didn't tend to fight as hard as some of the mexican troops. but on the u.s. side most soldiers were actually volunteers. the real interesting thing about this war. at the store, it was so overwhelming, particularly in the midwest that many, many more men volunteered to fight and could actually be taken in volunteer regiments. so overwhelming enthusiasm for the war. and the fact that midwest provides the most troops fighting in mexico. a lot of people think it's the

south but it is a. missouri and illinois are the two states that provide the most troops to go to fight in mexico. nonetheless, support for this war was not universal at the beginning. here we have a campaign poster for henry clay who was the whig nominee in 1844, and his opponent in 1844 was james k. polk who ran on a platform of -- expansionism generally. clay opposes in 1884 because as you can see from this post a believe it's going to result in war with mexico. and i love this poster when i discovered it. this is from campaign events in indiana. and if you look at the list, why you should support henry clay here from 1844, the first couple are really typical whig economic positions. the weeks are generally the party of economic developing in the united states in 18 -- in 1840s. but when you get down to about the fourth reason, you can see,

are you for or against the annexation of texas? are you for or against the assumption of texas? are you for or against an unjust and disgraceful war with mexico? and then my favorite one, are you for or against national dishonor and disgrace? so this is in 1884. this is what trends have are going to say but if you don't vote for henry clay you will bring national disgrace to the country and will be at a war with mexico. 30 people could see the writing on the wall. in new england at the start of the war, anti-slavery sentiment was really widespread, and also antiwar sentiment. for pretty early on in the war the massachusetts house of representatives said this war is immoral and they will oppose. and a lot of new england intellectuals, provided critiques of the war. ralph waldo emerson, henry david thoreau, all these people

speaking out against the war in pretty strong terms. i think that if opposition of the war had remained limited to new england it would be interesting. what you see happen though is over the course of the war new england stopped being the only place where people protest the war and you begin to see a national antiwar movement grow. there are essentially four main grounds upon which americans oppose the war. the first one which you can see very clearly in this post is on the grounds of morality, that this was an unjust war which would bring national dishonor on the united states. congressman joshua of ohio repeatedly warned the house of representatives that in order to be patriotic people have to quote this sent from this aggressive uphold an unjust war, and he said and the murder of mexicans upon the own soil are robbing them of the country. i can take no part you now or thereafter, and getting, he was

rather strong in his opinion, but that was a kind of critique that you see, certainly by march of 1847 when the united states bombarded the town of vera cruz leading to the death of a lot of civilians, there was an anti-mexican worker take that was based on morality. the second grounds upon which people critique the war were on the ground of slavery. and getting -- he was an abolitionist, but it was not just abolitionists or people in new england who so issues of slavery in really important to this with a lot of people felt like if the united states did, in fact, annex large portion of mexico it would make slavery spread and fact make the slave power stronger. again it wasn't just people in new england who held this view. consider for a moment this very popular print of the work, maybe some of you have seen this. when you first look at it, it's

kind of a neat image of the power of newspapers in 1840s. this is called war news from mexico from a well-known and respected artists at the time. so at first it looks like kind of an image of people being enthusiastic about the war. they just got news. in fact, the u.s.-mexico war was the first war where journalists traveled and were embedded with troops there to basically cover journalists who traveled with the troops and they wrote that story. this is the first war where people forgetting immediate news about what's happening from a firsthand account from journalists traveling with the truth. look at the image more closely. i should tell you, first of all that would build was from baltimore. he was not from new england. notice how he plays his slaves right up at the front and center of the image. i think what he is asking readers to think about, by putting slaves in the front of

the image, and also if you look at the edge of the image you can see a guy who is tossing a match into a burial. this is for suggesting what if mexico -- what is mexico really going to do except set off a firestorm. another major critique of the war have to do with what people saw as the impact of service in mexico on the american territory. so people actually argued the mexican war was making the american character worse. in fact, it was degrading american soldiers and turning them into the kind of people that we believe didn't want them to be. this critique he came especially strong after reports of very bad behavior by american troops made it into u.s u.s. newspapers to n happening about the middle of 1847. particularly in northern mexico, the volunteers were told you about behaved extremely badly. they murdered civilians in the

streets. the raids mexican women. there were reports that entire villages were being burned down. and general zachary taylor felt like he really couldn't control the volunteers to the volunteers were under control of their own commanders coming from the own town, and none of them really seemed to abide by the kind of discipline that taylor expected and basically got from the regulars in the army. here is one image of a massacre of 25 mexican civilians by arkansas volunteers who are known by the way as the rack and sackers. this was painted by a soldier from illinois who actually claimed to see this massacre happen. he didn't see. it was reported all over the united states the the rack and sackers were taking revenge on the people of mexico for the murder of one of their own, but so this would indiscriminate gathered up a bunch of mexicans into them into the cave and killed them.

this was a really widely reported incident but by no means was i it exceptional but,n fact, a couple weeks after this happened there was another massacre that was similar that was perpetrated high-tech since. so when the american people read about this kind of behavior, it also helped turn them against the war. to st. louis republican was a newspaper that when i heard about this massacre, it initially claimed that it couldn't be true so they denied. they said these are rumors. it's not too. but then once the newspaper got verification of it it actually wrote to all of its readers, it said let us no longer complain about mexican barbarity, poor degraded grief stricken as she is to know act -- can't excel the work of yesterday committed our soldiers, running in an american paper. and, finally, the fourth recent and perhaps the most important reason why the antiwar movement spread, it's basically racism.

a lot of americans felt like association with mexicans wouldn't just corrupt american men. it also has the potential of degrading the united states altogether by watering down what americans believe to be the anglo-saxon blood through the incorporation of mexicans. south carolina's greatest orator and intellectual, john calhoun was a firm believer in the importance of the need of slavery in american society was a very active opponent of the war with mexico because he thought that mexicans did not belong in the united states. he said quote, i protest against the incorporation of such a people, ours is the government of the white man. and calhoun was hardly alone. a lot of americans really felt like mexican land might be desirable but having to take mexican people with its pose a problem to the united states. now, it wasn't just

intellectuals, ministers and northern -- making this critique. one of the contributions that i think my book does, makes, showing the role that soldiers and officers actually played in the evolution of this antiwar movement. and so this brings me to colonel john hardin, from illinois, a gentleman i already interview should you. and would come to know after spending many hours with his family in chicago. hardin, again from jacksonville was a former whig congressman. he was part of a very wealthy and prestigious kentucky family, which led to henry clay. both through marriage and bloody, very tightly woven sort of kentucky aristocracy. hardin was the first man in illinois to volunteer to fight for the u.s.-mexico war. he was volunteering to fight the war before it even started. he was repeatedly writing letters to stephen douglas, even though douglas was a democrat, was a good friend of his. hardin had a lot of military expense but he fought in the black hawk war. he was an officer in the.

and he was in charge of taking the normans out of the state of illinois. so hardin was a big military guy, also a political guy. and he really but wanted to fight mexico. he wrote letters to newspapers saying this is our greatest possible opportunity to gain california from the united states. and if war is declared i will be at the front of that movement and, in fact, he was. now, hardin is very, very excited about the possibility of taking a lot of mexican territory. he's a big proponent of manifest destiny. but when he gets to mexico his views change pretty quickly after that. when he first gets to mexico he writes in sort of rapture's terms about potential silver mines he's heard about. and he says, the silver mines here are supposed to be bridges in mexico, and we're only abandoned by quote the ignorance of the mexicans. and he said it would only require a little skill to make these mines very valuable. he's excited and he can see

mexican and american hands. the longer he spent in mexico the less you like to. and early december 1846 just a few months after he arrived in mexico he wrote his law partner quote is not an acre in 500 year that a man in an would pay taxes on. and the people of mexico were far worse. i've never seen a drunken mexican he admitted, that's the only good thing i can say about them. they are admissible race with a few intelligent man. three-course of the people are peons and as much slaves in the south, treachery, stealing other characteristics they would make admissible addition to any portion of the population of the united states. to another friend he wrote just a week later that the only difference between the peons of mexico and the slaves of the south is their color. and he says as for making these peons voters and citizens of the united states, it should be not thought of until we give all indians of vote. so these are his thoughts of what's happened in mexico to this transformation occurred

after only three months in mexico, and he told a third friend, he said, although i was for annexing all this part of mexico to the united states before i came here, yet i now doubt whether it's worth it. so much for mexico, its people are not better than the country. and his evolution from this sort of, sort of a scene of public spend of the war was a rabid one, but it wasn't uncommon to his views were shared by many in the army. like i said, it was midwesterners who initially showed the most enthusiasm for the war with mexico but many of the men decided taking part of mexico wasn't such a great idea after all. there exposure to the land and people in mexico, frankly their commanders were no more enthusiastic. general taylor push for a quick end to the war and expressed reservations about the valley of mexican territory to the united states. the national antiwar movement became a particularly seated

after winfield scott troops captured mexico city. here's an image of scott entering mexico city but if you look at the lower left hand corner of the image you can see a peons picking up a rock and preparing to throw it at the american troops. this is an image that basically expresses the extreme hostility of many people in mexico city having their city occupied by american troops. initially americans were extremely enthusiastic about the fact that their army had conquered the capital of another country, but when mexican still refuse to come to terms, what begin action was a period of very, very bleak occupation that ended up being terrible for the army and terrible for the pro-war movement generally. winfield scott's troops were suggested -- subjected -- and it was really no end really no and other were inside because mexico still refused to give up.

at the same time, a lot of expansion is in the united states, once the united states captured mexico city begin to argue that, in fact, maybe the u.s. should annex all of mexico. after all, you've are recaptured the capital city, why not take it all? people around the country began to question whether this war should go on any further. the turning point occurs two months after scott occupies mexico city. on november 14, 1847, when henry clay give them major antiwar speech in lexington, kentucky, after the war. against the war. now, clay have been out of the public spotlight since its disastrous and terrible defeat by james k. polk in the election of 1844. a defeat which he never expected and, frankly, did not believe. and the defeat was probably caused by the fact that he was opposed to the war. unfortunately, henry clay not

only have suffered through the defeat at his namesake and favorite son henry clay junior, like john j. hardin although he was awake, volunteered to lead troops into mexico. so junior becomes a leader, a kentucky troops, takes them down to mexico and he is killed at the battle of buena vista just like john j. hardin is. so henry clay has to face the death of his son in this war he did not believe in, and after his son's death, he becomes very religious. he gets baptized and he decides to make a speech opposing the war that helps to bring the war to a close. and clay's speech which is hugely important because reporters traveled over 100 miles to hear it, and the newly invented telegraph meant that within a couple days of the speech being uttered by him it was reported around the country. clay's speech really touched on all of those for a opposing the war. he talks about how immoral the

war is. he says the u.s. has lost its reputation abroad. he talks about american soldiers being disqualified by a wild spirit of adventure return to society. he said slavery is a great evil and this might cause the spread of slavery. he also makes it clear there are racial reasons to oppose the w war. clay asked his listeners destiny consider and believe it's possible the two populations, so different in race, language and loss, could be blended together in one harmonious mass? after this rousing speech, clay called for mass meetings around the country to end the war. and people actually took him up on it. i located over 30 meetings in support of his resolutions from indiana to new jersey, and louisville to me. this geographic scope of people basically are meeting together in public forums and saying yes, we need to leave mexico and in

this war immediately, as well be on the opposition of the workday control. i think constitutes the first national grassroots antiwar movement in american history. i should tell you that what clay asked to have happened was for the united states to leave mexico and not take any territory for mexico altogether. he wanted peace without any territory, which, of course, didn't happen. now, just two weeks after clay's speech, the 30th congress convened in washington and guess who was there? abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln heard clay's speech in lexington because he was visiting the town on his way from springfield to washington, d.c. ..

>> the politician that he respects and admires the most, and he heard clay give the speech against the war. so perhaps it isn't surprising when lin cone get -- when lincoln gets to washington, he decides to oppose the war. the first speech that lincoln gives in congress are what are known as his spot resolutions where he basically gets up, and he calls the president a liar for claiming that american blood was with shed on american soil. he lays out this very lawyerly list of reasons why it wasn't american soil. that's his first speech. lincoln's second national speech is a very, very dramatic attack on polk and attack on the war, the highlight of which being

lincoln saying that he more than suspects that polk is deeply conscious of being in the wrong, that he feels the blood of this war like the blood of abel is crying against him. he knows where he is, and i love this image. this is an image of polk from late in his presidency, and polk basically worked himself to death in support of this war. he worked incredibly hard, and you can see how much he's aged just from the picture i showed you earlier which was taken at the start of his presidency. so lincoln adamantly attacks polk. most scholars have said that his attacks were ignored. i found by looking at futures that this was not the case and, in fact, the spot resolutions and particularly the speech that you see here was widely printed across the united states. this is really lincoln's first taste of national acclaim and attention. now, little did lincoln know,

but the president actually was con founded, and here's why. back in the summer of 847 -- 1847, polk disbatched a tryst -- dispatched a tryst to negotiate with mexico. polk began to think that, in fact, we should take more of mexico than the treaty stipulated. polk wanted to see baja, california, in the united states, he had designs on what the united states should take that were much more than he told nicholas tryst to negotiate for. so he recalled tryst, told tryst to come home, and tryst refused to come home. tryst, along with scott who was a good friend of his by that point, decided that making a peace treaty with mexico was the most important thing he could do, and as he said himself, he wanted to make a treaty that was not exacting to mexico. he wants to save the mexican people from a continuation of the war and from the

dismemberment of the country. so tryst wrote the president, and he said i'm not going to come home. and he made the treaty of guadalupe despite the fact that he wrote to his wife i will probably never work in washington again, my career is over. polk was so angry with him that he withheld tryst's pay, and tryst, his family became, um, incredibly poverty-stricken. and it wasn't until after the civil war when ulysses grant was president that tryst got another president. this is barely at the end of his life, and he was given a sort of not very demanding position running a post office in virginia. but up until that point tryst was broke and his family suffer terribly because of this -- suffered terribly because of this. now, let me just kind of wrap this up and tell you sort of what i think anti-war protests, the sort of context for them. the top quote that i have here

is a quote from polk from january of 1848. and this is what he said to his cabinet. he said this at this point he mt be willing to accept a session of mexico and the passage across the usth miss -- isthmus, and in addition we should secure the port of tam picot. if you look at this pap, you can see various lines that sort of demonstrate where, what people wanted to take. let me see if i can get this going here. so this is the initial line that hex coe offered -- mexico offered in negotiations, and if you look here, this is really what polk was hoping to take if january. so what that would have brought is an additional one-third of the country of mexico into the united states than what ended up happening.

unfortunately, on february 19th the treaty arrives in washington signed both by tryst, the negotiator who's no longer legal, and his mexican counterpart. and polk decides he has to accept the treaty, because there's no longer congressional support for the war. and he thinks long and hard about this. he writes in his diary i'm going to have to accept this treaty even though i don't like it because, quote: the probability is that congress would not grant east men or -- either men or money to prosecute the war. so, you know, just the to conclude here, did the anti-war movement achieve all it goals? certainly not. henry clay wanted the united states out of mexico without taking any territory. i don't know that it was an extremely realistic position, but this was clay's position. did the anti-war movement and the war, i feel pretty strongly that anti-war agitation forced polk to bring the war to a close even though he wants more

territory. i think it did limit the territorial acquisition from this war. i believe that had polk been allowed to continue fighting, mexico would have been forced to give up more land than it ultimately did. it definitely mobilized the public in support of bringing an american war to a close for the fist time. so i think it's important to acknowledge that anti-war movements existed in the past, that they can work, they can have real effects, and they can limit the loss of life, pause i think the anti-war movement that emerged during the u.s./mexican war did all these things. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. >> and identify again pre pre vs postwar -- [inaudible] >> sure. all right. so this is the area that mexico

initially is willing to give up, which is really the top half of california and going -- [inaudible] from the san francisco bay across. this is what the united states ends up taking -- [inaudible conversations] and this is what polk wants. down here. polk wants baja, he basically wants to come down here, take so mother rah -- sonora -- [inaudible] >> who was -- [inaudible] and position on the war? >> douglas was totally in favor of the war. he was a democrat, but he's very, he's very -- he does not

trust polk at all. and he writes to harding and says, you know what? i don't know what this president's doing. i don't actually have any idea, but he supports the war. he doesn't give any big speeches in support of the war, but he's definitely in support of it. yes. >> how do you -- [inaudible] and yet there have been other wars -- [inaudible] >> so you peen in the historical memory why the war faded? okay. the first reason why this war faded from memory is because the civil war followed it not many years later. and the civil war had all of the thrilling battles of of the u.s./mexico war, but also kind of a message that america could believe in which was that we were reunifying the country and by americans, i'm talking about

not southerners here, but the victors in the war were able to craft a narrative that was extremely uplifting and has remained uplifting. so it was a more dramatic and exciting war. it was a much bigger war. many more people were killed, many more people were involved. so that kind of overshadowed it. the other thing is i do not think it fits into narratives that americans tell themselves about their military involvement. if you think about the wars that americans like to commemorate, and one character i talk about in this book at some length is ellen harden wool worth who was the 14-year-old daughter of john harden when harden was killed. and she and her father wrote letters back and forth. ellen harden goes on to found the daughters of the american revolution later in her life, and her thinking about the american revolution is that a war that will teach people patriotism. so she becomes this prolific

author about the revolution and a defender of battlefields in saratoga and a really, really important national figure. and she never talks about the u.s./mexico war even toe her father -- even toe her father being killed in that war was a defining fact if her life. for a lot of americans, i mean, that's a war that's about principle, right? and the civil war is about principle. and world war ii's about principle, and world war i's about principle but then we have these other battles, these other wars that people are involved in that really aren't about principle. and certainly the u.s./mexican war fell into that category. >> quick question about the -- [inaudible] >> yep. >> i'm sure you can have a lively discussion about the treaty and how --

[inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] 67 years later there's a huge push to -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> there's a huge push to -- [inaudible] >> right. >> in 1912 there's a strike in bloomington, illinois, which is not far from here, where they imported mexican labor. it's out of the newspaper. >> yeah. >> and when the mexican workers got here and realized that the union was on strike, they refused to work and effectively ended the strike. so there's a huge turn around as

far as attitude and, again, the people, what happened to the -- >> well, there is but there isn't a change in attitudes, right? i mean, a lot of people in the united states are perfectly happy to import mexican laborerrers as long as they can be set back to mexico once the season allay boar was done. and the program is really incredible unfair to mexican laborers and really set a model for importation of other laborers that continues to this day in terms of dispose able laborers who can be brought in and then sent back at will. in terms of the way that the mexican people who became part of the unite were treated -- the united states were treated, it's a terrible story. and one thing that i found really kind of profound and sad in looking at this is that there are actually a number of mexicans who support the u.s. cause. they actually think they're going to be better off under a u.s. government tan they are under mexico's government. because the fact is mexico does

not treat the residents of its northern territories very well. it's not interested in them, does in the provide them with protection from indian tribes, and a lot of these people -- particularly large landowners in california -- actually come onboard the u.s. cause, and they support u.s. troops, they provide troops with horses and munitions, and those people all lose their land because the fact of the matter is although there are supposed legal rights that are given these people, the way that property disputes play out is in local courts, and those local courts are incredibly racist against mexican people. so pretty much everybody in california who's mexican ends up losing their land. and you see similar things going on in new mexico. basically, it's not a happy story in any way. in terms of the larger question that you're asking about attitudes towards mexican people, i published an op-ed piece not that long ago looking at the u.s./mexico war as the origins of what republicans

refer to as the latino immigration problem. and if you look at what happened in this last election, the republican party looked at it and said afterwards, wow, we really need to change the way we talk about imgrants because it's costing us votes. latinos voted overwhelmingly for democrats in this election, and a number of house races which were supposed to be toss-ups ended up going to democrats because latinos in the areas voted 70, 75% in favor of democrats. so republicans are like we need to think about a new way to talk about immigration, but there's this ongoing problem that people have particularly in the areas that we're talking about here which were once mexican and were taken from mexico at the end of the war where the presence of mexican people makes anglos feel extremely uncomfortable, at least some anglos, and leads to this kind of anti-immigration rhetoric. so, yes, really good points. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> i'd like to ask you to

comment in view of your observations on the anti-war sentiment that seemed to prevail after the mexican war why there seemed to be such popularity associated with the filibuster movement. william walker invaded baja -- >> yes. that didn't go very well with. yeah, sonora didn't go too great. yeah. >> and, granted, he did not succeed, but why was he so popular? did it seem as though it was a different era? a new opportunity for expansionism? how do you explain that? >> well, i actually wrote a book about this. >> oh. [laughter] >> it's called "manifest manhood," and it's all about support for filibuster. william walk wither, his exploits are pathetic and really very sad. he doesn't know what he's doing. but the truth of the matter is when he goes back to san

francisco and he is tried on violating neutrality rules, he goes free because you can't find a jury to convict him, because a lot of americans still believe in manifest destiny. it's when walker gets to central america and becomes the president of nicaragua that he becomes a huge national figure. so there's a lot of people in america who really still have these very expansive views of what the the united states can become. it's not unusual for people to talk about the united states encompassing all of central america, canada, perhaps even south america. this is what people think is going to happen. how do you deal with that situation? well, it's not a coincidence that william walker basically supports slavery. so his idea of how to deal with racial issues is to bring african slaves into tease areas, you know, and some people are talking about how perhaps we should enslave central more thans themselves. so it's a very, it's a strange and unusual situation but, yeah, i think filibustering exists very uneasily with the

u.s./mexico war. but by no means does the close of the war p stop americans from trying to get mexican territory. i think the ease or the seeming ease with which the u.s. took half of mexico's territory actually emboldens them to say, sure, we can go get central america, no problem. the very pack. the very back. >> yes, ma'am. two questions are floating in my mind, and they kind of tie in to what's been asked previously. first question is, has to do with the immigrants coming to the united states around, during the 1840. did they have opinion or observation about the war, and can how did it affect their integration to u.s. society? the second question is cora montgomery, and did her reporting affect the national

attitude, or it just continued to fester the idea of manifest destiny? thank you. >> okay. i write a lot about cora montgomery. i don't think her report anything the u.s./mexico war is very important. some people have basically implicated her in a plot to do a peace treaty, but i think that's basically been -- i don't think there's a lot of support for that. so i don't think cora plays a huge owl in this war, although she certainly does in the filibustering exploits of the 1850s. and, in fact, she's a big proponent for a sort of northern view that annexing mexico will actually help race relations in the united states as opposed to make slavery worse of a problem by providing an outlet for slaves. so she actually promotes this pretty much totally crazy idea that if we take mexico or parts of mexico or central america, slaves will and free blacks will sort of flow south and will whiten the northern part of the united states.

yes. she wasn't the only person that said that. it's really hard to believe anybody actually took this stuff seriously, and i don't know that they did. you know, the other question about the immigrants is really interesting. so the 1840s and 1850s are the period of the highest rate of foreign immigration in the united states in american history. of we think it's the late 19th century which is the real ill gration period, and if terms of numbers, the most immigrants come into the united states in that period. but the 1840s and 1850s in terms of percentage of population, you have huge numbers of irish b families and germans who are coming here because of a terrible economic situation in germany, and other immigrants coming into the united states, and they're posing a lot of problems to a lot of of people in the northeast especially in terms of assimilation. a lot of those immigrants go, and they fight in the u.s./mexico war. and the reason that they do that is because they don't have economic opportunities here in the united states. for the most part, they really

are not very food soldiers. an -- very good soldiers. an entire battalion is formed called -- [inaudible] now, people think they are all irishman because they carry an irish flag, but actually when you look at the people, there's a lot of germans there too. what you can mostly say is they were for the most part catholic. one thing i didn't talk about in the story at all is there's a very intense tension between the catholicism of mexico and the sort of mainstream protestant beliefs of most americans. so a lot of americans actually go to mexico, and they think that they're going to convert catholics or redeem catholicism and basically get rid of a catholic threat, and immigrants fit into that. i was lucky enough to have a graduate student who translated a bunch of german accounts by soldiers who went into the war, and they all think the war's a terrible idea. they think it's ridiculous. so overall i think europeans are

able to see from the beginning sort of the flaws with this idea of starting a war against a neighboring republic in order to take the territory. and there's a lot more i could say about this, but i think i'll have to leave it at that. oh, i've got one more question. yeah. >> when lincoln becomes president, what is his relationship with the leader of many mexico? -- leader of mexico? and how -- [inaudible] >> okay. i'm going to send you guys all to see the benito juarez exhibit and not answer that. [laughter] i want you to go see for yourself, because it's such a wonderful exhibit. thanks so much. [applause] >> tell us what you think about our programming this weekend. you can tweet us @booktv, comment on our facebook wall, or send us an e-mail. booktv, nonfiction books every

weekend on c-span2. >> doug brinkley whose most recent book is this, "cronkite." one word. doug brinkly, if you had to describe walter cronkite's influence in america, how would you do it in 20 words or less? >> 20 words or press, mostt trusted man in america became his moniker, and he wore it pretty well. there was great pressure, but hs carried our country throughd things like the mercury and gemini and apollo missions at their heyday, he was our voice through the civil rightshe movement, the vietnam war, watergate, nixon's resignation, the birth of earth day, even he was the person who brought begin and sadat together which led to the camp david peace accord. so seminal broadcast journalism. the big three are edward r. murrow, walter caron cite and

lowell thomas -- cronkite ande lowell thomas. >> how did he get to be that guy? >> you have to condense your stories, you're given about a thousand words, and you can'tf put a lot of adverbs and adjectives in it. so he learned how to write.y unknowingly, that wire service e was perfect for television when you only have 15-minute or then a half an hour news broadcasts. so cronkite didn't throw loose d language around. he was very precise. >> doug brinkley, was he political? >> cronkite was a new deal democrat. he was -- >> and was that known? >> no, it was not. he became l a fan of franklin roosevelt, cheered for him as a boy growing up in the 1930s. in the 1950s, some people felt s cronkite was a republican because his boss was.e the founder of cbs workedor directly for dwight eisenhower in world war ii, and ike just

personally loved walter cronkite. so when you have ther 10th -- i mean, the 20th anniversary of d of day, eisenhower took caron cite to the wave -- cronkite to the beaches and wandered around there. is there was a feeling in the early '60s that cronkite was ake republican, but the vietnam ware showed him to be a liberal, and as i l write, he came out publiy saying i'm a pan of the left in a speech in front of barbara jordan, the liberal congresswoman from texas. >> did that hurt him? >> no.or was by that time he had stepped down as the anchorman in 1981. he had played mr. center and mr. objective quite well, any more than if you go to a doctor and are getting a surgery, youtc don't care if the doctor's ahe democrat or republican. he came out and voiced some dissent on the vietnam war, it was the beginning of him editorializing. and that's a slippery slope we're on now.e o

and also you see with cronkite the birth of celebrities insi it's. where cronkite would go to a rally with senators, everybody bum rushed him. they wanted to meet cronkite, not a senator from wisconsin or arizona. >> how would you describe him ac a private person? >> a lot of fun. walter cronkite could not stand pompous people.a lo he would purposely do things to illicit laughter. parties he would drink a lot, t held sing old-time songs, take part in a strange strip tease act just to get people to crack up. that's whyhy i interviewed so my different people from his good friends on the left like jimmy buffett and mickey hart to on the right, all of the reaganitei liked walter. the to know walter was to likecr him. >> what was your connection torw walter cronkite?o >> i knew cronkite.

he came to a book party of min mine in 1993 for my biography of dean acheson, and he thought iht was david brinkly's son, which i am not. and i had to correct him. and then later we would haveth lunchen with arthur schlessinger jr. in new york, so i got to know him, and he did a dust jacket blurb. he knew i was doing this book before he passed. i was with him about six months before his death, but at that point a form of dementia had come in. and while he could show you memorabilia, he was not up for a true drilling on his back pages. >> so, doug brinkley, this book came out five, six months ago. what's the next book for you? >> well, i have been, i've been working on this what i'm calling a wilderness cycle.er it's conservation history, but i happen to like the word t wilderness better than conservation. i did the warrior on theodorethe

roosevelt and quiet world onworl saving the alaska wilderness. , g forester in chief, franklin roosevelt, the ccc, and wild america. i'm looking how fdr and gifford-pinchot got two billion trees planted through the youth car in the 1930s. so i'm waiting of the death bowl. everglades. >> we were indicating before this interview, you were telling me you spent seven hours with neil armstrong. >> guest: i did. i grew up in ohio, and i don't have time to get the detail but i go to be do the official history for nasa right after 9/11, and he doesn't like talking, mr. armstrong, so i was able to burn some tapes with him, which i'm very proud of. rosenthal, an editor of news week, tune out about and it i

wrote a little piece -- a long piece in "newsweek" about neil a remember strong, and my university rights, we celebrated the 15th anniversary of john f. kennedy challenging america to go to the moon on the campus i teach. and kennedy said we go to the moon because it's there, and listening to kennedy years about the moon shot, you wonder why politicians today don't get behind a war on cancer or don't talk up a going to mars or something. we seem to have lost that sense of bigness. hopefully it will come back. >> host: we've been talking for a short time with doug brink eley. his most recent book, cronkite, and we appreciate y >> booktv has over 150,000 twitter followers. follow booktv on twitter to get publishing news, scheduling updates, author information and talk directly with authors